Approved gratuity fund provisions remain deductible despite general actual-payment requirements, preventing revision of the allowed gratuity deduction...
Verification of intangible software expenditure and duplicated disallowances requires record-based reassessment before depreciation and income computa...
Cash receipt aggregation requires a single transaction, event or occasion; separate partner capital contributions cannot attract cash-receipt penaltie...
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.